The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained the defendants from using the domain name getshaadi.com or any other mark deceptively similar to Shaadi.com, holding that such use amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and dishonest diversion of internet traffic.
Justice Arif S. Doctor, deciding the suit ex parte, noted that People Interactive India Pvt. Ltd., which operates the matrimonial platform Shaadi.com, had established long, continuous, and exclusive use of the mark “Shaadi.com” since the early 2000s, supported by substantial turnover, extensive advertising, and widespread public recognition. The Court held that the plaintiff’s mark qualified as a “well-known trademark” under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, therefore, “any unauthorised use of the trade mark “Shaadi.com”, or of any deceptively similar mark or domain name, would most likely result in an association or trade connection with the Plaintiff.”
The Court found that the defendants’ adoption of the mark and domain name getshaadi.com for identical matrimonial and matchmaking services was ex facie dishonest. It was observed that the plaintiff’s entire mark “Shaadi.com” had been subsumed in the impugned domain name, making confusion and deception inevitable. The addition of the word “get”, the Court held, did not distinguish the defendants’ mark in any meaningful manner.
A significant factor relied upon by the Court was the use of the plaintiff’s trademark as meta-tags and keywords on the defendants’ website. Referring to web analytics evidence placed on record, the Court noted that nearly 74% of internet traffic to the impugned website had been diverted from the plaintiff’s website, clearly demonstrating passing off, deception, and exploitation of the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, apart from dilution of the Plaintiff’s mark and erosion of its distinctive character and goodwill. This conduct on the part of the Defendants would cause loss, damage and harm to the Plaintiff, the court added.
The Court further held that domain names function as business identifiers and are entitled to trademark protection, reiterating that dishonest use of a well-known mark as a domain name or meta-tag constitutes infringement and online piracy.
The defendants’ failure to appear, file a written statement, or contest the proceedings was also taken as indicative of bad faith.
Allowing the suit, the Court granted a perpetual injunction restraining infringement and passing off, directed removal and delisting of the impugned domain name, and ordered delivery up of infringing material. The Court also awarded ₹25 lakh as costs in favour of the plaintiff, holding that realistic and compensatory costs were warranted in commercial litigation, given the defendants’ conduct. The Court directed that the amount be paid within twelve weeks, failing which interest at the rate of 8% per annum would be payable.
Appearances
Mr. Yatin Khochare a/w Ms. Preeta Panthaki i/b Krishna & Saurastri Associates LLP for the Plaintiff.
None for the Defendants
